The Republican controlled Congress just passed a bill to repeal Net Neutrality with President Trump just moments away from signing the bill into law with added provisions to prevent others from being able to undo the piece of legislation:
Linked article indicates this is just the internet privacy regulations being removed, not all of Net Neutrality (eg, ISPs taking effectively-bribes from companies to ensure traffic to their websites is unhindered). It's bad, but not "the worst possible thing!"
Oh boy, we're at that stage. It's the 'how close are we to having a facist dictatorship' game. Because America may still be a while away, but the fact that it's even this close is terrifying. Especially given terrifying political regimes don't have a history of a slow and peaceful transition. But, if there is going to end up being such a regime, we also need to make sure it's not from a reactionary movement that ends up becoming worse than what is was fighting against. Hopefully what instead happens is Trump's presidency is actually a wake up call that drives political engagement in the US, something of which there are signs of happening already thankfully.
You are the only person to bring up Hitler/the Nazis in the past three pages of the thread (posts from this year).
Can you provide recent citations or sound reasoning for this list of statements and implications in your post?
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because of bombing Yemen.
Trump is compared to Hitler because of the temporary ban on Yemeni immigration.
People are saying en masse that the hijab is a symbol of female liberation.
People are saying en masse that Western Christianity is repressive.
Mexico has communicated that it can't do anything about the US/Mexico border.
Mexico has shown particular recent concern for its southern border.
Practically everyone in NATO hasn't fulfilled their treaty obligations in decades.
Bern fans are complaining about Trump being an isolationist.
Trump is treating trade exactly like Bernie promised to do.
Leftists have been warping the minds of our children with their moral and cultural relativism for years.
I'd also like to call out the comparison between subjective morality to "alternative facts", a label that's applied to something objective.
Plenty of people believe morality is objective as well though.
While there are certainly people who believe morality is objective, Ljoss said "moral and cultural relativism", which is subjective by definition.
Exactly. I think he is trying to say moral and cultural relativism is like alternative facts in distorting the objective truth.
I don't think they are quite comparable IMO.
EDIT: Even more so if you consider that, as I think, 'alternative facts' is not an honest idea, whereas relativism is.
I'm not fiddling. I'm asking reasonable questions like "what has he done?" and getting Hitler comps as answers.
Obama bombs Yemen, wins Nobel Peace Prize. Trump places temporary ban on Yemeni immigration and he's Hitler. You see how this is difficult to take seriously? Meanwhile, the hijab is a symbol of female liberation and Western Christianity is repressive, Mexico is telling the U.S. that it can't do anything about its porous southern border all the while Mexico itself sure as heck is concerned about its southern border, NATO is whining about the U.S. being a poor ally when practically everyone besides the U.S., U.K. and Poland haven't fulfilled their treaty obligations in decades, Bern fans are complaining about Trump being an isolationist just because he's treating trade exactly like Bernie promised to and leftists are outraged at the phrase "alternative facts" after they've been warping the minds of our children with their moral and cultural relativism for years.
You are the only person to bring up Hitler/the Nazis in the past three pages of the thread (posts from this year).
Can you provide recent citations or sound reasoning for this list of statements and implications in your post?
Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because of bombing Yemen.
Trump is compared to Hitler because of the temporary ban on Yemeni immigration.
People are saying en masse that the hijab is a symbol of female liberation.
People are saying en masse that Western Christianity is repressive.
Mexico has communicated that it can't do anything about the US/Mexico border.
Mexico has shown particular recent concern for its southern border.
Practically everyone in NATO hasn't fulfilled their treaty obligations in decades.
Bern fans are complaining about Trump being an isolationist.
Trump is treating trade exactly like Bernie promised to do.
Leftists have been warping the minds of our children with their moral and cultural relativism for years.
I'd also like to call out the comparison between subjective morality to "alternative facts", a label that's applied to something objective.
Plenty of people believe morality is objective as well though.
I mean, I knew it was going to be bad, but I didn't think it'd be as bad as it's been. It hasn't even been a week and it's spiraling so badly out of control. It really makes me wonder how exactly the next four years are going to have any silver lining when it comes to the government short of open revolt.
How is this bad? It's pretty awesome so far. He's doing basically the same things that almost every other POTUS candidate would have done but in funnier ways. For example, exposing steaming pile of garbage Buzzfeed and their fake news pals.
The only legitimate fake news point Trump has had was the 'dossier' posted by Buzzfeed and that was only unconfirmed and said as much in the article. It was really more irresponsible than 'fake news'.
Instead, Trump is now currently calling various major news sources fake news for reporting correctly on the inauguration and not presenting the totally fabricated attendance numbers than Spicer is pushing. Which is not only petty, but incredibly manipulative. He's trying to undermine the media so he can control the story with his name recognition and emotional appeal. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/01/all-of-this-space-was-full-a-photographic-fact-check/514253/ https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824078417213747200
So there's that.
The idiot right loves to try to project. Its possible that he really doesn't understand the difference between reporting on a source and what has actually earned the moniker "fake news", that is garbage that is completely fabricated by the "news" outlet.
It's terrible journalistic ethics to publish (or in CNN's case, ideologically promote) explosive allegations with no corroboration. I'm fine with the description 'fake news.'
CNN has not been promoting the legitimacy of the 'dossier'. Their coverage has actually been fairly restrained and critical of it. They just mentioned it existed before buzzfeed published the damn thing.
I'll accept what Buzzfeed did with publishing the dossier itself is at least something like fake news though.
I agree with Blinking Spirit, I don't think there's any reason to suspect the US vote has suddenly been hacked. And I also agree that electronic voting is not currently safe, and there should be at least stronger safety requirements like Kahedron suggests.
Maybe one day when (presumably it will happen) quantum computing becomes mainstream, then we could use electronic voting because of how difficult it is to hack quantum computers at all and only using quite unconventional methods.
And a difference here is quite significant because my larger thesis here is that Trump supporters continued to exist largely because they felt they were not being listened to, they where being dismissed.
Except their actual grievance isn't that they're not being listened to, it's that people aren't agreeing with them.
The complaint that they're being dismissed is merely an extension of that. They see widespread disagreement with their opinions, and, because they don't perceive themselves as being incorrect (which they might if they *thought critically*), they see the widespread disagreement against their arguments as illogical reactions by people who are either blinded by their own biases or groupthink or what-have-you.
It wouldn't be a problem if they didn't feel they were dismissed. That's what stops them listening to opposition.
The problem is...
we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
Correct, we aren't. Because these people aren't making arguments that are rooted in logic, reason, and facts. They're making arguments backed by bull*****.
So, the correct response is to dismiss these arguments. Arguments backed by nothing factual can be dismissed.
Yes, dismiss their arguments. But not by dismissing the superficial points, but by making an effort to find underlying preconceptions first, and by making an effort to appeal to them so they will listen to you.
See, this is why *thinking critically* is so important. These people will jump up and down about how their arguments are being dismissed unfairly. They aren't. An argument backed by nothing, with a plethora of evidence against it, can be dismissed, and such dismissal is perfectly fair. They're being dismissed because they are factually incorrect. But, since these people do not perceive themselves as factually incorrect, they will jump to other conclusions as to why they're arguments are being dismissed, namely that people are meanie-heads who are deciding that they're wrong without ever actually listening to them. Because what would be the alternative? Why the alternative would be considering the possibility that...
we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it.
Which is why we need to think critically about what they're saying. You're saying, "We shouldn't dismiss these people unfairly," but what is your basis for thinking that they are being dismissed unfairly?
I never said such a thing, other than with reference to specific statements you and Tiax made.
What I am saying is if people think they are being dismissed unfairly, dismissing them can very easily lead to them not listening to you because, to them, you are validating their narrative.
So I am suggesting we should be very careful about being dismissive, not for the sake of whether it's fair, but whether it's productive.
This isn't about fairness, this is about strategy.
Also,
and that therefore we should be careful about giving them a chance to prove themselves, at least in so far as their basic intelligence and some amount of basic decency.
This is quite a bit of "pot calling the kettle black," Mr. "we aren't dealing with a group of perfectly rational people, far from it."
You're basically admitting that these people are irrational and wrong. Yet, you object to anyone telling the irrational and wrong people that they're irrational and wrong, even though you not only believe they're irrational and wrong, but also you're SAYING they're irrational and wrong in a public forum where they can clearly read what you are saying.
So you don't think you can be irrational and wrong without lacking basic intelligence and decency?
Because I do.
There's a spectrum between perfectly logical and moral and completely irrational and morally reprehensible. Just because someone's on the bad end of the spectrum doesn't mean they are at very bottom.
So it's wrong to confront someone in a debate forum about the lack of objective judgment and rationality exercised in the ideas they're expressing
I'm talking about approaching this issue much more broadly than here on the debate forum.
(Also, my answer to this is no, in case that wasn't already clear from above)
The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.
I don't know if I would say "majority"; that seems like a bit of a sweeping generalization. But saying "a lot" could be reasonable.
Well a lot of belief is just basic things of your self, logic and the world.
That said, that is admittedly rather clearly quibbling about language for a marginal improvement in meaning, which is not the point.
I don't think 'Trump supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth' versus what I am saying which is basically 'there are typically bad at critical thinking/ are often irrational' is a marginal difference.
And a difference here is quite significant because my larger thesis here is that Trump supporters continued to exist largely because they felt they were not being listened to, they where being dismissed. So what I am saying here is that continuing to basically just dismiss them is going to get us nowhere, and that therefore we should be careful about giving them a chance to prove themselves, at least in so far as their basic intelligence and some amount of basic decency.
Would you agree that it does not appear that Trump supporters are exercising their critical thinking skills well in a worryingly large fraction of what they declare, or even in voting for Trump? (Perfectly reasonable to take that as two separate points.)
Firmly yes on both counts, but again those are both quite different statements from 'their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth'.
You said Trump's supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth. They aren't, as my argument supports.
I think you know what I meant. You're just continuing the trend of nit-picking rather than addressing any substance.
I'm not nitpicking, I strongly disagree with what you said. If you actually mean what I am saying, you can't pin that on me for calling you on it, that's on you for being so far off.
But you aren't doing it productively so what's the point?
If you let it go unchallenged, it can look like you've tacitly acknowledged it as valid, or at least unobjectionable.
So you literally only want everyone to know you disagree?
Don't be so dismissive then and just say you aren't going to bother with it. You are being provocative this way.
I take issue with you saying they don't think critically, not that they are being irrational,
Critical thinking: "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment."
Yeah, it does kind of sound like you're saying they're not exercising critical thinking skills, doesn't it?
Maybe to you.
You don't need to follow the above definition perfectly to be critically thinking, otherwise nobody would be capable of doing it regularly.
You can apply some amount of objective logical anslysis without only evaluating something logically and objectively.
just as I wouldn't take issue if you had instead said they are bad at critical thinking. It was the specifics that I objected to, as I thought I made clear.
So, in other words, it really is just quibbling over language usage?
Ok, well, thank you for that contribution to the thread. You have a Happy New Year, man.
Talking of specifics is not quibbling over language.
There is a significant difference between being bad at something and not doing it at all.
DJK, what is even the point of this? You outright say that Trump supporters aren't rational. But when I come in saying that they're irrational, you take an issue with it?
Because right now, you're coming off as a person who just wants to get the last word in, but has nothing except quibbling over words to offer. You may have an argument, but you're not demonstrating it.
I take issue with you saying they don't think critically, not that they are being irrational, just as I wouldn't take issue if you had instead said they are bad at critical thinking. It was the specifics that I objected to, as I thought I made clear.
The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.
When things are accepted by everyone, it does not signal critical thinking to also accept them. Such basic facts aren't a relevant indicator.
You said Trump's supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth. They aren't, as my argument supports.
You aren't interested in being productive about it, but you still want to say something. Don't.
I've already been productive about it. What I'm not interested in is seeing such drivel go unchallenged.
But you aren't doing it productively so what's the point?
Very, very many. People are innately critically thinking, no matter whether they are very good at it.
It's really not hard to show that many people are quite bad at critically thinking, but that's not the same as not critically thinking at all.
This is just petty hair-splitting. What practical difference is there between people being so bad at critical thinking that their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth, and not critically thinking at all? On question after question, Trump supporters do no better than random guessing. Once you cross that threshold, you may as well be not critically thinking at all.
The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.
Don't bother debating it at all then if you aren't interested in being productive about it
.
I've already given a thorough explanation in the other thread. If you or Yamaha need a refresher, go back and read it.
You aren't interested in being productive about it, but you still want to say something. Don't.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Oh boy, we're at that stage. It's the 'how close are we to having a facist dictatorship' game. Because America may still be a while away, but the fact that it's even this close is terrifying. Especially given terrifying political regimes don't have a history of a slow and peaceful transition. But, if there is going to end up being such a regime, we also need to make sure it's not from a reactionary movement that ends up becoming worse than what is was fighting against. Hopefully what instead happens is Trump's presidency is actually a wake up call that drives political engagement in the US, something of which there are signs of happening already thankfully.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Exactly. I think he is trying to say moral and cultural relativism is like alternative facts in distorting the objective truth.
I don't think they are quite comparable IMO.
EDIT: Even more so if you consider that, as I think, 'alternative facts' is not an honest idea, whereas relativism is.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Plenty of people believe morality is objective as well though.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The only legitimate fake news point Trump has had was the 'dossier' posted by Buzzfeed and that was only unconfirmed and said as much in the article. It was really more irresponsible than 'fake news'.
Instead, Trump is now currently calling various major news sources fake news for reporting correctly on the inauguration and not presenting the totally fabricated attendance numbers than Spicer is pushing. Which is not only petty, but incredibly manipulative. He's trying to undermine the media so he can control the story with his name recognition and emotional appeal.
https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2017/01/all-of-this-space-was-full-a-photographic-fact-check/514253/
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/824078417213747200
So there's that.
AND there's the fact that Trump is already making major moves to push back against climate change research and sustainability efforts, including signing gag orders to stop various agencies from talking about climate change, which is a blatant instance of censorship.
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/24/14372940/trump-gag-order-epa-environmental-protection-agency-health-agriculture
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/823950814163140609
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Energy_ _Oil.htm
So yeah, that's why people are worried.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
CNN has not been promoting the legitimacy of the 'dossier'. Their coverage has actually been fairly restrained and critical of it. They just mentioned it existed before buzzfeed published the damn thing.
I'll accept what Buzzfeed did with publishing the dossier itself is at least something like fake news though.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The Russian hacking has been linked to the election, that's gonna make it pretty big in the news.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Maybe one day when (presumably it will happen) quantum computing becomes mainstream, then we could use electronic voting because of how difficult it is to hack quantum computers at all and only using quite unconventional methods.
I think it's more important to continue to investigate government leaks like from the DNC and the Russian connection to them, especially given the head of US intelligence has recently outright said he believes more than ever that the Russian government was responsible for the DNC leaks and other interferences to intentionally affect the election result, that he will be pushing for more evidence to be made public, and that Julian Assange is not really trustworthy.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
It wouldn't be a problem if they didn't feel they were dismissed. That's what stops them listening to opposition.
Yes, dismiss their arguments. But not by dismissing the superficial points, but by making an effort to find underlying preconceptions first, and by making an effort to appeal to them so they will listen to you.
I never said such a thing, other than with reference to specific statements you and Tiax made.
What I am saying is if people think they are being dismissed unfairly, dismissing them can very easily lead to them not listening to you because, to them, you are validating their narrative.
So I am suggesting we should be very careful about being dismissive, not for the sake of whether it's fair, but whether it's productive.
This isn't about fairness, this is about strategy.
So you don't think you can be irrational and wrong without lacking basic intelligence and decency?
Because I do.
There's a spectrum between perfectly logical and moral and completely irrational and morally reprehensible. Just because someone's on the bad end of the spectrum doesn't mean they are at very bottom.
I'm talking about approaching this issue much more broadly than here on the debate forum.
(Also, my answer to this is no, in case that wasn't already clear from above)
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Well a lot of belief is just basic things of your self, logic and the world.
I don't think 'Trump supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth' versus what I am saying which is basically 'there are typically bad at critical thinking/ are often irrational' is a marginal difference.
And a difference here is quite significant because my larger thesis here is that Trump supporters continued to exist largely because they felt they were not being listened to, they where being dismissed. So what I am saying here is that continuing to basically just dismiss them is going to get us nowhere, and that therefore we should be careful about giving them a chance to prove themselves, at least in so far as their basic intelligence and some amount of basic decency.
Firmly yes on both counts, but again those are both quite different statements from 'their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth'.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I'm not nitpicking, I strongly disagree with what you said. If you actually mean what I am saying, you can't pin that on me for calling you on it, that's on you for being so far off.
So you literally only want everyone to know you disagree?
Don't be so dismissive then and just say you aren't going to bother with it. You are being provocative this way.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Maybe to you.
You don't need to follow the above definition perfectly to be critically thinking, otherwise nobody would be capable of doing it regularly.
You can apply some amount of objective logical anslysis without only evaluating something logically and objectively.
Talking of specifics is not quibbling over language.
There is a significant difference between being bad at something and not doing it at all.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I take issue with you saying they don't think critically, not that they are being irrational, just as I wouldn't take issue if you had instead said they are bad at critical thinking. It was the specifics that I objected to, as I thought I made clear.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You said Trump's supporters beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with the truth. They aren't, as my argument supports.
But you aren't doing it productively so what's the point?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.
You aren't interested in being productive about it, but you still want to say something. Don't.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice